Popper's Demarcation Criterion of Science - Essay Example

? Popper’s Demarcation Criterion of science Popper’s Demarcation Criterion of science Karl R. Popper was amongst the great philosophers of modern times who was strictly opposed to the classical understanding of philosophy, particularly philosophy of science, and was of the view of critical rationalism. As he was a PhD in psychology, he had a great eye on human nature and psychology too; this helped him in defining his believes of philosophy. Born in July 1902 and died in September 1994 at the age of 92, Popper was a genius of his field, with an extraordinary ability to define and justify his arguments. For all his contributions towards the society, he was awarded with several honors and awards, which include fellowships of many renowned institutes like London School of Economics where he taught as a professor too, Darwin College Cambridge, British Academy etc. As he was an Austrian by birth, the Austrian government also awarded him with the Grand Decoration for Services to the Republic of Austria in Gold (Popper. 2009). Primarily, Popper is considered to be a philosopher of science, who is merely interested with acquiring and working of knowledge. He thought that science is a fundamental study and if someone wants to study the growth of knowledge, he/she should understand the scientific knowledge firstly. He was very much impressed by Einstein’s theory of relativity which, in all of a sudden, changed the whole concept of science and smoothly disregarded the three centuries rural Newtonian physics. When Einstein claimed that if his theory would fail experimentally, he himself will adapt the classical concepts as it is, then Popper got struck with the idea that every scientific approach, philosophy or theory should be proved experimentally. So he introduced the idea of critical rationalism that every predicted theory should be put critically to test, whether to prove itself to be true or get falsified. Regardless of the positive outcomes of a specific theory the negative outcomes turn out to outweigh them and thus regard the theory as ‘false’ or invalid. He was also of the view that science is not imaginative or abstract; it is actually human thinking which constructs everything and should be tested logically (McFARLANE. 1990). Popper’s approach of falsification leads him to set his own criterion of the demarcation as laid down in science. According to him, any theory or hypothesis can be termed as scientific if it is falsifiable, i.e. If it can be proved by an experiment that the theory is false, then it would be a scientific theory. All scientific approaches are logical and can be proved right or wrong. The term falsifiable does not argue that theory should be proven false, but it means that if it is false in actual, then there would be a single result which conflicts with the theory. So Popper grouped all such phenomena of life which cannot be falsified into pseudo-science. Every such claim which lacks scientific methods to prove or disprove it and have some vague ideas behind them. Such theories are based on some exaggerated claims which clearly lack the supportive arguments, but anyhow the theory is termed as a scientific one (Popper. 1983). According to Popper, the science of astrology is in actual pseudo-science, which is based on such claims that cannot be falsified. In reality, no one can measure the movements of stars or zodiacs and the knowledge is purely fictional which is transferred from ancient astrologers. Most of the times it is found that astrological predictions do turn out to be true in real life and hence so we are forced to believe in knowledge. There is no doubt that knowledge really exists, but it cannot be termed as scientific knowledge as it does not take into account the norms and standards of science. People believe in astrology as it helps them and guides them in do’s and don’ts and some of them regard it as a field of science, so we have to draw a clear boundary between scientific and non-scientific claims if we are seriously interested in understanding the problem of demarcation. First of all, we list all the characteristics of pseudo science pointed out by Popper, and then test whether astrology fits in the criteria or not. It is obvious and clear that the knowledge of astrology cannot be falsified and it is impossible to check its falsifiability. No one in today’s world has been able to monitor the movements of stars and particularly, no one has yet identified any such Demon Snake whose head and tail show all the characteristics and effects of other planets in the natal chart. The demon snake which was introduced by Hindu astrologers cannot be proved as a scientific claim at all. It is purely fictional and no such thing exists in real life. So how can it bring some bad omen to someone’s life? People who claim astrology to be related to scientific knowledge cannot answer this question and they put forward that this is proven to be true as many people are affected by this. On the other hand, the supporters of Popper’s view cannot fully claim it as non-scientific as any such thing is not present to testify. So Popper puts this knowledge in the group of pseudo science (Thagard. 1978). In his famous publication Conjectures and Refutations in the year 1963, Popper argued that astrology is a typical case of pseudo-science as it fails to account with scientific theories in many ways. All such scientists who introduced the concept of gravity and lunar tides were somehow impressed from astrological assumptions but did not show it off. On the contrary, Galileo was the one who rejected any such concept and probably he was of the same view that astronomical effects cannot be applied on pure scientific happenings. In actual, astrologers use the trick of vagueness, they make their predictions so ultra vague that they cannot be testified or falsified. They think that any other knowledge is substandard against the one they have, and thus they use it in their own way as there is no one to accuse the truth of astrology. If the knowledge would be more precise than it actually is, people are smart enough to understand the vagueness of different predictions made by astrologers and would simply negate the whole knowledge as a scientific one, with logics and reasons to justify it. So as astrology purely consists of exaggerated and unbelievable claims, we regard it as non-scientific rather pseudo scientific (Popper. 1968). Another claim which Popper made to astrology and astrologers was that this knowledge clearly lacks an openness to predict about the characteristics of people and that they remain totally unaware about the basis of the predictions and prophecies that have been made. They are simply bound to the belief that they are born with some planetary position which can make them rich, make them happy or sad throughout life etc. There is no openness from the astrologers to cooperate and to share the knowledge that how they see such positions or movements of planets and stars. They consider that as people have brought their fates from heavens which cannot be altered.. Logics fail against nature and so is the case with astrology. So when there is no point of logical reasoning, Popper claimed it as a pseudo science. Another main point which Popper used was that scientific knowledge has no ending or limits; it can be further extended and explained with the advancement and progress in technology. Every scientific theory is proved or disproved with the passage of time, like Classical Physics was replaced by Quantum Physics which is genuine and more authentic. On the contrary, astrology has reached its limits and there is no extension of the astrological knowledge with the advancement in technology. As astronomy made several landmarks with the passage of time, astrology did not make any such activity. It remained there from where it had started and is still out in today’s time as limited as it was before. There has been no change in the myths associated with the planets, like Saturn is purposed to bring bad omens in life and Jupiter is the planet of wealth and success. No one can justify all such beliefs so astrology cannot be a true scientific theory. Concluding, Popper’s remarks on astrology being a pseudo science are quite satisfactory and understandable. No doubt more than 70% percent of the world’s population believes in astrology and considers it as the most authentic knowledge in predicting future. There is no question about its authenticity of being knowledgeable. But when it comes to group it as a scientific or a non-scientific study, it is better to put it in the group of pseudo science as it contains all such knowledge which can be presented as scientific, but as it relies completely on heavenly bodies, it is impossible to testify and prove it. Bibliography Karl Popper. Feb 9, 2009 retrieved on 23/12/2011 KEVIN McFARLANE. THE CRITICAL RATIONALISM OF KARL POPPER. 1990 < http://faculty.insead.edu/popescu/udjcore/xtramaterial/philosciencepopper.pdf> retrieved on 23/12/2011 POPPER, K. R. (1968). Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. New York, Harper & Row. POPPER, K. (1983). The logic of scientific discovery. London [etc.], Hutchinson. THAGARD, P. R. (1978). Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. 1978, 223-234. Read More